Plague or Poetry? Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
Author(s): Thomas E. Morgan
Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 124 (1994), pp. 197209
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/284291
Accessed: 04/05/2010 01:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://pr2litvip.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-).
http://pr2litvip.jstor.org
Transactions of the American Philological Association 124 (1994) 197-209
Plague or Poetry? Thucydides on
the Epidemic at Athens
Thomas E. Morgan
Bellevue, Washington
In the second book of his History, chapters 47 through 55, Thucydides describes in great detail a severe v6oao; (disease) that ravaged the city of Athens
in the summer of 430/429 BC.1 This disease quickly reached epidemic proportions, attacking about twenty-five percent of the adult population with a
high rate of mortality. So vividly did Thucydides describe the signs, symptoms,
and sequelae of the disease that his ancient and modem readers alike became
fascinated with the illness. But, despite his detailed description, the cause of the
epidemic remains uncertain. Its mysterious nature has played upon the minds
of philologists, historians, and physicians and, in recent years, the disease has
assumed more importance in some quarters than the war in which it arose.
Certainly more scholarly attention has been directed to the nature of the epidemic than to the effects of the epidemic on Athens' ability to conduct the war
with Sparta.
Especially in the past one hundred years, physicians have joined philologists in speculating about what micro-organism caused the epidemic. One
scholarly analysis has succeeded another, arguing that the cause was smallpox
or measles, typhus or scarlet fever, bubonic plague or pneumonic plague, ergotism, leptospirosis or Tularemia, and, more recently, Marburg-Ebola virus,
Rift Valley Fever, or influenza complicated by staphylococcal infection.2 Each
11 will translateGreek words and phrases,with apologies to philologists, for the sake of
physicianswho may not have learnedGreek.The terms'disease' and 'epidemic'will be used
throughoutsince they are morein keepingwith Thucydides'terminologyandavoid the connotationsof the more usual term 'plague,' especially those of the medievaldisease of the same
name.The text of Thucydidesused is the Oxfordeditionof H. S. Jones (1900, rpt.with apparatuscriticus, 1942).
2Smallpox (Littman and Littman), measles (Page, Shrewsbury), typhus (Crawfurd,
Gomme), scarlet fever (Rolleston 49), bubonicplague or pneumonicplague (Hooker,MacArthur),ergotism(SalwayandDell), leptospirosisor Tularemia(Wylie andStubbs),MarburgEbola virus (Scarrow), Rift Valley Fever (Morens and Chu), influenza complicated by
staphylococcalinfection(Langmuiret al.).
198
Thomas E. Morgan
proposed etiology fit the description in certain respects, but each had its
difficulties as well, thus accounting for the continuing search for the true
cause.3
Since the opinions of scholars have varied greatly and no consensus has
been reached, what are we to conclude was the cause of the pestilence? Is
moder medical science capable of determiningwhat agent was responsible? As
a physician, recently earning an advanced degree in Classics, I was at first
hopeful that a definitive answer would emerge, but later I began to doubt.
Within the past two years, however, two scholarly contributionshave appeared
which may direct future critical thinking along more productive lines. In the
first, a contribution that appeared in these Transactions, Morens and Littman
provided an analysis based upon epidemiological principles rather than the
usual medical approach. Their analysis shows that the disease was one whose
characteristics limit but do not define the etiological possibilities, a welcome
departure from the seemingly endless arguments about the causative agent
based solely on the symptoms described by Thucydides. The second contribution, by Pearcy, properly focuses our attention on Thucydides' description as
a narrativework of the fifth-century BC that presents "...reality mediated, and
therefore transformed,by the conventions of language and art" (599).
The purpose of this paper is to re-examine, in the light of these recent
contributions, Thucydides' language, his ability to use medical terms and concepts correctly, the literary context in which the History was written, and his
purpose in reporting the epidemic. My hope is that with such a review we can
understandthe limitations imposed upon our modem scientific and philological
interpretationof Thucydides' words and ideas. Then, with a clearer grasp of
his description, we can better evaluate the epidemic that ravaged Athens in the
second year of the Peloponnesian War.
However much modem observers may wish it otherwise, we are still
dependent on Thucydides; only he gives us such a complete description both of
the disease and of its consequences for Athens. If we are to understandthis description, we must understandThucydides' times, his vocabulary, and the literary setting of his History in the last quarterof the fifth century. Although we
cannot know all that might be desired in that regard-indeed, we are not even
sure what fraction of the Athenian population was literate-we do have certain
information that bears on the literary "standards"of his time. Cochrane in
3Cf. the excellent reviews of the problem by Scarborough,Poole and Holladay, and
Longrigg.
Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
199
1929 showed clearly how indebted Thucydides was to the Hippocratic authors,
maintaining that it was their critical approach to medicine that influenced
Thucydides to adopt the critical method in historical narrative. J. H. Finley
agreed with Cochrane, holding that the Hippocratic critical method influenced
not only Thucydides and the recording of history, but also extended to many
other areas of Greek endeavor as well. Cochrane's seminal work was also
accepted and extended by scholars such as Weidauer, Page, de Romilly, and
Scarborough, but Thucydides' relation to the Hippocrateans has not yet been
completely explored. The persuasive argumentsof Cochrane and Weidauer still
go largely unnoticed.
Page noted that Thucydides used many terms in his description of the
disease that were also used by the Hippocrateans: aiogaxc86|q (blood-red),
(pXoy)aoo (burning), )zep'uOvpov(reddened), ie3Xtrvo6(livid) among others.
In his careful scholarship, Page noted verb usage that was typically Hippocratean as well as a number of terms that were not employed by the physicians
exclusively. Sixteen years later, Parry (113) responded that Page had overstated Thucydides' dependence upon the physicians for technical terms, saying
that the "vocabularyof the description of the Plague is not entirely, is not even
largely, technical" and that most of the terms were in common daily usage.
Parry's sharp disagreement with almost all previous scholarly commentaryhas
never been, to my knowledge, critically reviewed, but has been accepted as the
ultimate judgment by many later writers. Yet, if we are to understandprecisely
what Thucydides was describing, we must understandhis terminology. Who is
correct, Page or Parry?Using the computer-based ThesaurusLinguae Graecae
(TLG), I examined the occurrence of all the terms used by Thucydides to describe the symptoms in History 2.49 and confirmed that Page was in almost all
respects correct. There are at least five terms in Thucydides' description that
occur only in the Hippocratean corpus and nowhere else in all of the preThucydidean Greek literature that has survived to modem times (Morgan).
Page approachedthe problem to show that Thucydides was dependentupon the
Hippocrateans for his medical terminology; Parry was at pains to show that
Thucydides was not indebted to the physicians. As is often the case in such
controversies, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but the TLG search did
support the conclusion that Thucydides knew the medical literatureof his time
and relied upon it for the technical terms and medical concepts demanded by
his description of the disease.
A further fact helpful in understanding the literary culture of
Thucydides' times emerged when the TLG search was conducted. The TLGIBYCUS compact disc contains all extant Greek works of antiquity. As the
200
Thomas E. Morgan
search for the occurrence of a given word proceeds, a sense of the volume of
the literaturebeing searched is impartedas a function of the time necessary for
the search. The fact that emerged was that the fifty-one books of the Hippocratic Corpus are equal in volume to all other pre-Thucydidean Greek literature combined. The Corpus was, however, probably written both before and
after Thucydides' time, so that only about half of what we have today would
have been available to Thucydides.4 Still, the number of volumes that would
have comprised a complete Greek library (if indeed such a library had ever
been assembled in fifth-century Athens) would have been heavily weighted
toward medical works. While some may quibble as to the exact proportion of
the medical works, they must have comprised a significant part of the written
literature then available. We can conclude on this basis, as well as those cited
by other authors such as J. H. Finley and Cochrane,that Thucydides must have
known these medical works and could hardly have escaped being in some way
influenced by them. But, in assessing the literary environment in which he
composed the History, we should not forget that, while Thucydides depended
on the physicians for some terminology and concepts of disease, he was
addressing his History primarilyto a non-medical audience.
It was in this environment,then, that Thucydides set down this account of
what seemed to him to be the most importantwar in history. He says as much
in the beginning (History 1.1) and thus justifies his labor. But it is importantto
understand that the History is narrative, a series of events linked temporally.
There is little analysis of cause and effect compared to the practices of modem
historians, and the reality of the events, especially the speeches, was admitted
by Thucydides to have been tailored to suit his narrativepurposes (1.22.1). Did
4Thisestimateis basedon an analysisof the occurrenceof theverbs"todie"(certainlya common verb of outcomein medicine)in GreekworksbeforeandafterThucydides'time. Priorto
is overwhelminglypreferred,with 97 occurrencesin 10 non-medical
430 BC the verbOv-iloKc
and
authors,while after400 BC throughthe time of Galenthe preferenceshiftsto &aoOvicoKo
oVvaxoovvioK(co(more than 1195 occurrencesof the compoundverbs in four authors)as opposed to OvaOKco(237 occurrencesin the samefour authors).In each analysis,the Hippocratic
Corpuswas excluded.Whenthe Corpuswas analyzedseparately,232 occurrencesof "verbsof
But the
and 142 were (onv)canoOv'ioKco.
dying" were found in 35 books: 90 were OviaOKc
two forms did not often occur together in the same book; either OviOKo was used or
ex(ouv)acxovilacKo was employed. Of the 35 books using the verb, 12 used 0vTiOKco
4
both
books
used
forms
and
the
19
used
forms,
only
compound
only
clusively,
was favoredby moreancientauthors,thatthe
I have assumed,basedon the fact thatOvioaKco
the
form
were
olderbooks.Further,Thucydidesuses both
the
books
simple
using
Hippocratic
formsequally,thusplacinghim in the 'transitional'period.[Formorecompleteanalysis,please
referto my thesis.]Finally,the sumof the 'OvicCo books' [12] plus the 'transitional'ones [4]
equals those written before or duringThucydides' lifetime and is roughly equal to the 19
'(oov)axoOviloKcobooks' writtenlater.
Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
201
Thucydides also tailor his description of the epidemic to suit the purposes of
his story? I believe that he did and that we can find evidence to support this
point of view in Thucydides' choice of verbs and style of presentation in the
disease description as compared with the remainder of the History. If
Thucydides had followed the Hippocrateansin describing the course of the epidemic, he would have been, like the physicians, telegraphic, terse and spare. By
comparison, Thucydides' disease description is literary and complete. Physicians, both ancient and moder, tend to use the same verbs repeatedly to express the outcome of a case when it ends in death; Greek physicians invariably
used a form of 9OvaKco.Thucydides neither uses the same verbs as the physicians nor confines himself to a single one, using instead a variety of verbs:
5ta(pe0ipo six times in chapters 49-53, &a76Xou,gttwice, and OvjacKccthree
times, but never in the disease description itself. He seems to alternate these
verbs to avoid repetition. Was Thucydides choosing verbs more commonly
used in military connections than in medical situations? Was this a subtle
attemptto link the pestilence to the war in the mind of the reader?He also used
the more ancient, poetic form OviKOcwratherthan the compound airoOvfiTanco
in vogue during his lifetime.
With the exception of Parry, no scholar has paid attention to the style of
the description. This is most curious because even to an inexperienced reader,
chapters 49-53 seem remarkably free from the usual difficulties of Thucydides' style. There are few passages marked, as so often elsewhere, by ellipsis and difficult grammar. On the contrary, as Parry has so aptly put it: "The
style of that description is observant and exact, but...it is grammatical,
...dramatic and imaginative, controlled throughout by the writer's determination to show the awful and overwhelming power of the sickness. The sentence
construction is various, often containing powerful and unexpected verbs in emphatic positions, or after a climactic catalogue, resolving itself into an epigrammatic summation" (114). I would disagree with Parry's position in only one
respect: the literary emphasis Thucydides displays has interfered with exact
reporting of the medical facts. And it is this medical inexactness that has
defeated moder attemptsto assign an etiologic agent.
If then, as seems very probable, the description is a narrative one that
verges on the poetic, how are we to view his description of the epidemic of
430-427? As a factual reality or as a narrativethat blends fact with other purposes? Pearcy, reviewing the differences between modern ontological or
202
Thomas E. Morgan
patho-physiological medicine5 and Hippocratic doctrine, argues convincingly
that modem physicians are "...conditioned...to suppose that Thucydides' text
will be sufficiently transparentto allow [them] to identify the disease that it
presents" (598-99). As a result, modem commentators have tended to take all
symptoms at face value, to interpretall questionable technical terms in modem
terms (e.g., the variations in translationof (pXovKTaivatSas either flat or raised
skin lesions), to overlook certain items or their absence (e.g., the absence of
reports of scarring if the disease were smallpox) and to misread the Greek, all
in order to fit the disease to a modem patho-physiological entity. While
Morens and Littman reviewed the disease symptoms ontologically, they correctly concluded that "...Thucydides' descriptionof the epidemic disease is subject to potential error" (1992: 278). They note that his accuracy in recording
signs and symptoms may be flawed because of inconsistencies between ancient
and modem concepts of disease, because of lack of precision in ancient medical
terms, because Thucydides was not trained as a physician (as far as we know),
and because, as I will show, Thucydides wrote the account of the epidemic not
for medical reasons alone but also for dramaticones.
Pearcy has extensively discussed the point that ancient and modem concepts of disease differ, primarily because the ancients did not have modem
knowledge of patho-physiology, but also because they regardeddiseases as engendered by humoral imbalance within a single person. Given such a basic doctrinal difference, it is extremely unlikely that the two approacheswill converge
on a single disease entity. Lack of recognition of these differences in doctrines
and lack of precision in medical terms have led to much ink being spilled
during the past fifty years in the hope that by precise identification of symptoms a single modem cause of the disease could by recognized. For example,
Thucydides' victims displayed reddish, livid skin, breaking out into small pusiai 'iKEctv
tules and ulcers (...icEp-oupov, iXtvoTV6v,(pkuKTaival gctKpai K
?rv90rK6o;, 2.49.5) or, in modem parlance, an exanthematous disease. Then
the controversy raged among modem scholars: was the disease measles or
smallpox or typhus or scarlet fever? Some read (pXlcKaivat; as 'blisters,' such
as Aristophanes' rowers had (Frogs 236); others read 'spots' or 'rashes.' Thus
the term (pX-oKctivat;,variously interpreted,meant raised skin lesions to some
modem commentators but smooth lesions to others. Some said the rash was
that of scarlet fever. No, said others, the lesions were the swollen glands of
bubonic plague because Thucydides really meant to say poovp3v instead of
(PXuKTcXvatg Kcai ?ixK?oav. The fact that such crucially different meanings
SThatis, the view thatdiseasesarecausedby agentssuchas microbes,geneticabnormalities,
chemicaldisorders,etc. whichcause abnormalfunctioningof the bodyor its parts.
Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
203
could be read into Thucydides' words shows the degree of imprecision that
exists.
Consider another, more flagrant, example of ancient and modem imprecision: In 2.49.8 oaptapic6Levot (the masculine, third person, plural, middle
or passive participle of arepco, agreeing with )okUXoi,the antecedents of
which are aiSoioa, XeipaOand co65s;)has often been translatedas active: 'cutting off,' ratherthan in the passive sense, 'being deprived of' or 'losing the use
of' (LSJ s.v. aTe?peo, 1). Most modem commentatorshave missed the passive
nuance of 'losing the use of' which accords with the ancient occurrences where
one 'ao?picoKotat...'to v 6oiaov,'
that is, 'loses the use of the eyes,' or 'is
off
not
'cut
the eyes.'6 Interpretingthe passive as
blinded' but certainly does
active in History 2.49.8 has led some, including Lucretius, to a misunderstanding that aoeptiKc6govot means amputation with a knife (as Lucretius' ferro),
that is, surgically by the patient or physician, or amputation by gangrene.7
Gangrenous amputationsuggests typhus or ergotism (among other diseases), or
the combination of influenza and secondary staphylococcal infection. This latter suggestion that two diseases which had captured popular attention in the
twentieth century might have been the cause of a 'toxic shock syndrome' 2400
years ago, gave rise to a symposium at the 1985 annual meeting of the American Philological Association and to national press attention. Fortunately,
Morens and Littman (1992, 1994) have now invoked epidemiological arguments to show that two or more diseases could not have been involved to cause
a single epidemic, thus sparing academiciansthe necessity of arguing on philological grounds whether the middle or passive was intended.
These are only two examples of crucial symptoms that might identify the
disease if more precise agreement between ancient intent and modem interpretation could be found. More such disagreements exist, but these two examples
demonstratethe futility of our continued attempts to read into Thucydides' description a modem interpretationof the cause of the disease. There is another
aspect of Thucydides' description that occurred both to me and to Morens and
Littman that can perhaps lead us to a better understandingof Thucydides' 'case
history.' It seemed to me and to other physicians to whom I showed a translation of History 2.49-50, that the organization of initial symptoms and signs
mixed with later "complications and sequelae," as Morens and Littman (1992)
6Forexample,Herodotus6.117.2 and9.93.3-4 andPlatoPhaed. 243a.-b.
7Baileyad 6.1209 commentson Lucretius'error.The diagnosticimportanceof gangrenein
the Athenianepidemichas beenvery muchoverstatedin the literature,especiallysince it is unclear that gangrenewas actually being describedby Thucydides.Cf. Littmanand Littman,
especiallyat 270.
204
Thomas E. Morgan
put it, closely resembles the 'head to toe' listing of symptoms and signs gathered by a neophyte modem medical student when first presented with a complicated diagnostic problem. The student, armed with a catechism for the
ordering of signs and symptoms and rudimentaryinstruction in the methods of
eliciting them, is sent into the presence of a more or less cooperative patient,
there to sharpen the diagnostic skills. The result, almost always, is the collection of a bewildering array of data, not the least one of which can be omitted
from presentation to the student's instructor. In order to miss nothing and to
organize the symptoms and signs coherently, the student resorts to a catalogue
arrangedin 'head to toe' sequence.8 Such may have been the ancient approach
as well, although we have nothing to tell us how the formidable Hippocratean
skills of observation were taught to apprentices. Whatever the reason, the
occurrence of symptoms in the head-to-toe sequence described by Thucydides
is not characteristicof any known disease.
When the epidemic raged throughout Athens, Thucydides was likely to
have encountered a very confusing situation. He observed Athenians in all
stages of the disease: some showed more of a given symptom than others, some
were just becoming ill while others died or recovered; some had mild cases,
others all the symptoms and sequelae; some passed the crisis in seven days,
some in nine; all the populace was crazed with fear. How was the historian to
deal with such confusion, recordingeverything and omitting nothing that might
help the reader to recognize the disease when it recurred?Thucydides was undoubtedly acquaintedwith Hippocrateantheory but not skilled in medical practice, therefore what would be more natural than the head-to-toe catalogue of
symptoms and signs that he has left us?
Having considered the medical aspects of the description of the epidemic,
let us turn to the historian's purpose in reporting it in such graphic detail and
especially in placing it in such close association with the funeral oration of
Pericles. Most historians believe that as the war progressed, Thucydides made
notes from which he completed his History many years later.9If so, it appears
from the description he has given us that he was no more certain of the form
taken by the disease at the end than at the beginning of the war. It is obvious
that neither he nor physicians with whom he must have consulted had a clear
idea of the nature of this epidemic. What then was his purpose in giving such
prominence to the description of the epidemic? Was it "merely to describe
8Such a sequence has for many years been mandatedin the protocols taughtin 'physical
diagnosis' courses. See, for example, R. D. Judge and G. Zuidema, Physical Diagnosis
(Boston 1963).
9J. H. Finley 77, M. I. Finley 46.
Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
205
what it was like and set down the symptoms so that [it can] be recognized, if it
ever breaks out again" (2.48.3)? Or was there another reason that guided him
in his description?
It is likely that Thucydides used the epidemic to emphasize the effects of
the war upon the Athenian people, who were then at the height of their powers.
M. I. Finley notes that Thucydides had to describe the epidemic because it
killed so many Athenians, but that "to make the point, however, Thucydides
did not need to build up the horrifying picture he did, as detail is piled upon
detail with superb artistry... The objective, for which the details laid the
necessary basis, was the long final peroration[2.52-54] on the moral and social
breakdown brought about by the plague" (49). And Parry is correct in saying
that, to Thucydides, "The Plague is a na0oq, like war, and in fact, it is a partner of war. War, Thucydides tells us clearly in 1.23, consists of tcd6rl.It is in
fact to be measured by suffering and destruction."10In this sense, the description of the disease, which is clearly a result of conditions such as overcrowding
brought about by the war, is a literary device emphasizing the triple destruction of crops, people, and animals by the war and its accompanying pestilence.
Thucydides speaks of the Spartansravaging the deserted fields and orchardsat
the height of the growing season while inside the crowded city people and animals are struck down by an illness none can prevent or treat. He describes the
disease in horrifying detail and then shows that it leaves its victims so weakened in mind as well as in body that individual and collective mores collapse,
men look only for pleasure and refuse to fight, the gods are forgotten, temples
are desecrated, funeral pyres stolen, and the dead go unburied in Athens while
the countryside is wasted. Thucydides concludes:
TotozrColv 'cdeL oi 'A0qvaciot7t?ptu?o6vT?e;
?xtC?ovO,avKCaiyTi i?`0 ? lo0l?Vrg;.
Opo6CovT' iv?ov OVTOKOVTCV
Such was the disasterwhich fell uponthe Athenianscrushingthem,with
peopledying insidethe city andthe landoutsidelaid waste.
(2.54.1)
With these words he evoked an image that joined him and his audience to a
long line of authors going back to the very beginning of Greek literature: so
Homer told in Iliad 1.47-53 of the pestilence rained down by Apollo's arrows
upon the Greeks warring at Troy, and Aeschylus spoke of "the evils with
which the gods smote the Persians"(Persians 514), and Sophocles set the stage
for the tragedy of Oedipus with the words:
10Parry 115. The excellent discussion by Parry on the poetic style of Thucydides is
commendable.
206
Thomas E. Morgan
"(poivouoa
?e~VKaXVCtv yIKc&paCot;
x0ov6c;
(pOivo'uoa 6' ayXat;
povv6oR0t; TOKotIOiIe
' 6 n)p(p6poc;Oci;
ayovot; yovatKuv. v
xotiu6$
?LavVEt,
, o Xtv..."
oK(a<;
'X0togO;
"Blightingthe landin ripeningflower,
Blightingthe grazingherdsof oxen,
Blightingourbirth-laboringwomen,the fiery god strikes;
he hurlsdown a hatefulplagueon ourcity..." (OT 25-28)
Just so does Thucydides describe this epidemic: people dying in the city while
the fields outside are laid waste. Any Greek reading Thucydides' History would
be confronted with powerful literary resonances between the conditions at
Athens and the mythology and legends of Troy and Oedipus. It seems scarcely
credible to suppose that such resonance was not intendedby Thucydides.
Certainly the dramatic effect of the epidemic on the fortunes of Athens
was not lost on ancient authors. There can be no doubt that Lucretius recognized the power of Thucydides' description of the dual xc0Oo;of war and pestilence. Why would he have given the epidemic such prominence and copied it
so exactly in De rerum natura? And in the 'Noric cattle plague' of Vergil's
Georgics 3 many see another imitation of Thucydides' description of the epidemic at Athens (West, Mynors ad 3.478). Indeed, some believe the 'Noric
cattle plague' was wholly invented by Vergil for the dramaticand poetic effect
he so admired in Lucretius and, by extension, in Thucydides (West 37, Thomas
ad 3.478). In his mythical 'plague at Aegina' (Met. 7.523-613), Ovid used
elements borrowed not only from Thucydides' Athenian description, but from
Vergil's cattle plague as well (cf. Bomer ad 523). Thucydides' disease description was emulated not only by ancient poets but also by ancient historians
who admired the power of his description so much that they imitated it in their
histories of Parthianand Byzantine wars.11These ancient imitators of Thucydides understood very well that the dramatic effects of the epidemic made
gripping reading.12 It is beyond the scope of this paper to go further into the
descriptions of plagues by Latin authors or into the extensive bibliographies on
the subject; yet, the fact that three of the greatest Latin poets responded as they
did to the dramaof Thucydides' presentationof the Athenian epidemic suggests
11Woodmancites LucianDe historiaeconscribendi15 andProcopius2.22.
12West,"Two Plagues,"concludes, "Virgil is rhetoricalby comparisonwith Lucretius...
Lucretiusis emotionalby comparisonwith Thucydides.But it wouldbe misleadingto say, tout
court,thatLucretiusis emotionalor thatThucydidesis dispassionate.A comparisonwithGreek
medicalwritingsshows thatThucydides'accountof the plagueis dramaticandcompassionate
andpoetic,artisticallypatternedto demonstrateThucydides'view of history"(88).
Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
207
that a proper course for further investigation of Thucydides' dramatic intentions lies in this direction.
Those who look at the disease description separately from the rest of the
History make another error. They fail to see how Thucydides places Pericles'
funeral oration, the speech that celebrates Athens' pre-eminence and grandeur,
in juxtaposition to the description of the epidemic and the moral and physical
degradation the epidemic caused. Many months elapsed between the funeral
oration in the winter and the onset of the epidemic the next summer, but
Thucydides shortens this interval to the space of only six lines of text (2.47).
Rapidly but graphically, he describes the disease in three short chapters totaling
72 lines (2.48-50) and then depicts Athens' degradationat length in chapters51
through 54. And when we read the two sections together-the oration and the
result of the epidemic-we see many parallels:
In2.36Periclesspeaksof Athenian
ancestors
sinceit is "rightandproper
to pay them honor."But in 2.52 Athenianshave lapsedmorallyto such
an extent that they do not bury their dead, the ultimate dishonor to
ancestors.
In 2.37.2-3: "Athenianskeep the law," says Pericles, "...because it
commandsour deep respect.We obey the laws andthose unwrittenlaws
which it is held a shameto break."But in 2.53.1: "Thedisease brought
the beginningof greatlawlessness,"and, finally, "no fear of god or the
law of manrestrainedthem"for no manexpectedto live long enoughto
be triedandpunished(2.53.4).
In 2.41.5 and 42.5, Pericles speaks of yevvaixc; 8KatoXv?e; (noble
andrighteous)men with aperai (manlyvirtue)who foughtfor Athens.
We see a markedcontrastin the descriptionsin 2.52.4 of men who were
&vatioXWvovu(shameless)in theirdeeds and reckless in openly seeking self-indulgentpleasure(2.53.2)
In 2.44 Pericles praises those who met brave,honorabledeath on the
battlefieldwhile in 2.52-53 Thucydidesspeaksof templesfilled with the
deadleft unburiedor burnedshamelesslyon stolenfuneralpyres.
All this suggests that Thucydides intended the funeral oration, the epidemic, and its sequelae to be read together. He wished to describe the pathos of
war and the pathos of the pestilence in juxtaposition in order to contrast the
lofty ideals of the funeral oration with the degradationaccompanying a terrible
epidemic. In doing so he used images that resonated powerfully with the legends of Greek literature.In this way he could accomplish his greater objective,
which was to show the incalculable, demonic effect of war and its concomitant
pestilence on the citizens of Athens. There can be no doubt that his secondary
208
Thomas E. Morgan
aim was to describe a very serious epidemic that continued to afflict the
Athenian army for several years, both because it was a fact essential to his
History and so that it might be recognized if it should occur again. What is in
doubt is our ability to find an etiological agent for the disease by dissection of
the signs and symptoms of Thucydides' description.These signs and symptoms
are imprecise because our basis for understanding their meaning is different
from that of the Hippocrateansor of Thucydides, who used Hippocratic terminology and doctrines. The terms are imprecise, in short, because the ancient
humoral approach does not coincide with a modem patho-physiological approach, however much we might wish them to coincide. The description is
imprecise not only because the recorder lacked medical training, but also because he took dramatic license. To focus endlessly on what currently recognized disease caused the epidemic is futile and diverts us from Thucydides'
over-arching purpose: to describe a season of suffering that reduced Athens
temporarilyto the same condition which twenty-five years of war finally made
permanent.
Thucydides on the Epidemic at Athens
209
Works Cited
Bailey, C., ed. 1947. T. LucretiusC., De rerumnatura.Vol. 3. Oxford.
Bomer,F. 1976. Commentaryon P. OvidiusNaso: Metamorphoses.Heidelberg.
Cochrane,C. N. 1929. Thucydidesand the Science of History.London.
Crawfurd,R. 1914. Plague andPestilencein LiteratureandArt.Oxford.23-41.
Finley, J. H., Jr. 1942. Thucydides.Cambridge.
Finley, M. I. 1968. Aspects of Antiquity.New York.
Gomme,A. W. 1956. A HistoricalCommentaryon Thucydides,vol. 2. Oxford.
Hooker,E. M. 1958. "Buboesin Thucydides?"JHS 8: 78-83.
Judge,R. D. andG. Zuidema.1963. Physical Diagnosis. Boston.
Langmuir,A. D. et al.. 1985. "TheThucydidesSyndrome.A New Hypothesisof the Causeof
the Plague at Athens."New. Eng.J. Medicine313: 1027-30.
Littman,R. J. and M. J. Littman.1969. "TheAthenianPlague: Smallpox."TAPA 100: 26175.
Longrigg,J. 1989. "TheGreatPlagueof Athens."Hist. Science 18: 209-25.
MacArthur,W. P. 1954. "TheAthenianPlague:a MedicalNote."CQ 4: 171-74.
Morens,D. M. and M. C. Chu. 1986. "Letterto the Editor."New Eng. J. Medicine314: 855.
Morens,D. M. and R. J. Littman.1992. "Epidemiologyof the Plague of Athens."TAPA122:
271-304.
. 1994. "The 'ThucydidesSyndrome'Reconsidered:New Thoughtson the 'Plague of
Athens."'Am.J. Epidemiology140: forthcoming.
Morgan,T. E. 1989. "Thucydides'Descriptionof the AthenianPlague."Thesis depositedin
SuzzalloLibrary,Universityof Washington,Seattle.
Mynors,R. A. B., ed. 1990. Virgil's Georgicswith Commentary.Oxford.
Page, D. L. 1953. "Thucydides'Descriptionof the GreatPlagueat Athens."CQ 3: 97-119.
Parry,A. 1969. "TheLanguageof Thucydides'Descriptionof the Plague."BICS 16: 106-118.
AJP 113:595-616.
Pearcy,L. T. 1992. "Diagnosisas Narrativein AncientLiterature."
Poole, J. C. F. and A. J. Holladay. 1979. "Thucydidesand the Plague at Athens." CQ 29:
282-300.
Rolleston,J. D. 1937. TheHistoryof theAcuteExanthemata.London.
de Romilly,J. 1962. Thucydide:LivreI. Paris.
Salway,P. andW. Dell. 1955. "ThePlagueat Athens."G&R24: 62-70.
Scarborough,J. 1970. "Thucydides,GreekMedicineandthe Plagueat Athens:A Summaryof
Possibilities."Episteme4: 77-90.
Scarrow,G. D. 1988. "TheAthenianPlague:A PossibleDiagnosis."Anc. Hist. Bull. 2: 4-8.
Shrewsbury,J. F. P. 1950. "ThePlagueat Athens."Bull. Hist. Medicine24: 1-25.
Thomas,R. F., ed. 1988. Virgil's Georgics3 with Commentary.Cambridge.
Weidauer,K. 1954. Thukydidesunddie HippocratischenSchriften.Heidelberg.
West, D. 1979. "Two Plagues:Virgil's Georgics 3.478-566 and Lucretius6.1090-1286," in
CreativeImitationandLatinLiterature.D. WestandT. Woodman,edd. Cambridge.71-88.
Woodman,T. 1979. "Self-Imitationandthe Substanceof History,"in CreativeImitationand
LatinLiterature.D. West andT. Woodman,edd. Cambridge.143-56.
Wylie, J. A. H. and H. W. Stubbs. 1983. "ThePlague at Athens 430-428 BC: Epidemicand
Epizootic."CQ 33: 6-11.